The converse of this is that if it's a really rough print, there's often not a lot the projectionist can do about it. About a year ago, I projected an original, 1980s print of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". It broke three times and was generally in abysmal condition but what're you gonna do... once it's rolling it's a zero intervention process other than occasional focus checks.

I almost screamed at the screen - cut to a wiiiiiiiiide, for Christ's sake!!! One of the most annoying films ever made visually - 100% close-ups. I don't care how well they're lit - close-ups are easy. If you want to show me what you're made of as a DP, then do it on wides.

I almost screamed at the screen - cut to a wiiiiiiiiide, for Christ's sake!!! One of the most annoying films ever made visually - 100% close-ups. I don't care how well they're lit - close-ups are easy. If you want to show me what you're made of as a DP, then do it on wides.

I can't comment on this film but I agree with your last sentence. Have you seen a German film just out on DVD in the states called, "Schultze Gets The Blues"? There's hardly a close-up to be found in it. And no quick cuts whatsoever. Almost every single shot lasts for no less than 20-seconds and some for a full minute. A few may have been held a little too long but overall it was a pleasure to look at. Absolutely beautiful cinematography work too. And the music used throughout is quite different. Everything about this film is unusual compared to what's out today. Its like a combination of old-time dramatic film making and documentary techniques. Actually, the story was only so so, but it was incredibly well shot.

I almost screamed at the screen - cut to a wiiiiiiiiide, for Christ's sake!!! One of the most annoying films ever made visually - 100% close-ups. I don't care how well they're lit - close-ups are easy. If you want to show me what you're made of as a DP, then do it on wides.

The DI was also horrendous.

I thought it rather brilliantly emphasized the claustrophobia of hong kong. Wide angle shots are the standard nowadays and I tend to appreciate artists doing away with the standard. The framing in 2046 had other interesting psychological effects as well... It somehow complimented the obsessive nature of most of the characters.

I thought it rather brilliantly emphasized the claustrophobia of hong kong. Wide angle shots are the standard nowadays and I tend to appreciate artists doing away with the standard. The framing in 2046 had other interesting psychological effects as well... It somehow complimented the obsessive nature of most of the characters.

Steven

Agree 100 %

Really it's not so new with WKW, "In The Mood For Love" hardly goes wider and in "Days Of Being Wild" it's really the close stuff in which Chris Doyle's distinct style first stands out..

Besides who doesn't want to be close to Carina Lau, Faye Wong, Maggie Cheung, Zhang Ziyi and Gong Li ?

saw 2046 a little while back - really loved it, as i've loved pretty much all wkw offerings. interesting to see his first anamorphic feature - great article in the new AC about it - and how difficult it was to get a hold of panavision anamorphic lenses in asia as they were a low budget show and they shot over the course of several years with multiple dop's. haha can't imagine being their rep at panavision and getting a request for a full set of c's or e's for "i don't, know, a few months, couple of years, whatever, cool?"

they did in fact shoot fuji 250t - a fave of doyle and all involved. the DI really shines in the future sequences, and the fx, though not skywalker-esque, are gorgeous and very apporpriate, i think.

still not my favorite - happy together and chungking express still stand out to me more than anything, great movies and i saw them at some great times in my life with wonderful people.

I almost screamed at the screen - cut to a wiiiiiiiiide, for Christ's sake!!! One of the most annoying films ever made visually - 100% close-ups. I don't care how well they're lit - close-ups are easy. If you want to show me what you're made of as a DP, then do it on wides.

The DI was also horrendous.

The latest American Cinematographer magazine (Sept 2005) had a short write up on 2046, apparently the lack of quality of the wide lenses dictated their compositions. I scanned the pages if anyone is interested.

I thought the images looked outstanding at the theatre I was at. Some of the graniness on gradients and such I took as film grain and not digital noise, but my eyes are not as trained as some of you.